Method for interference alignment in wireless network

ABSTRACT

A method for interference alignment in wireless network having 3 transmitters and 3 receivers which are equipped with M antennas is provided. The method comprising: transmitting, performed by each of the 3 transmitters, a pilot signal known to the 3 receivers; estimating, performed by each of the 3 receivers, each channel from transmitter; transmitting, performed by each of the 3 receivers, feedback information to target transmitter; and determining, performed by transmitter 2 and transmitter 3, a precoding vector; wherein a degree of freedom(DoF) of a transmitter 1 is (M/2−α), a DoF of the transmitter 2 or the transmitter 3 is M/2.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to wireless communication, and more particularly, to a method for interference alignment in wireless network.

BACKGROUND ART

In a wireless network with multiple interfering links, interference alignment (IA) is used. IA is a transmission scheme achieving linear sum capacity scaling with the number of data links, at high SNR. With IA, each transmitter designs the precoder to align the interference on the subspace of allowable interference dimension over the time, frequency or space dimension, where the dimension of interference at each receiver is smaller than the total number of interferers. Therefore, each receiver simply cancels interferers and acquires interference-free desired signal space using zero-forcing (ZF) receive filter.

Most of conventional research on IA is considered to achieve the maximum gain of IA using the infinite selectivity over symbol extensions, which is unrealistic in practical wireless networks. Therefore, the recent studies on MIMO IA focused on the design of IA precoder using a finite space dimension over one transmission slot, which is called MIMO constant channel.

The difficulties of IA in MIMO constant channel is to derive the closed form solution of the IA precoder. In other word, conventional interference alignment(IA) solution for achieving the optimal degrees of freedom (DoF) requires product of all cross link channel information since all precoders are coupled. These coupled condition requires channel matrix multiplication. If channel state information at transmitter is imperfect, inaccurate channel matrix multiplication arises error amplification due to summation and multiplication of error. Therefore, IA solution for achieving the optimal DoF may not be optimal in practical system. To avoid the product of channel matrices to get better performance and reduce feedback overhead, efficient IA method is needed.

SUMMARY OF INVENTION Technical Problem

It is an object of the present invention to provide a method of interference alignment in wireless network.

Solution to Problem

A method for interference alignment in wireless network having 3 transmitters and 3 receivers which are equipped with M antennas is provided. The method comprising: transmitting, performed by each of the 3 transmitters, a pilot signal known to the 3 receivers; estimating, performed by each of the 3 receivers, each channel from transmitter; transmitting, performed by each of the 3 receivers, feedback information to target transmitter; and determining, performed by transmitter 2 and transmitter 3, a precoding vector; wherein a degree of freedom(DoF) of a transmitter 1 is (M/2−α), a DoF of the transmitter 2 or the transmitter 3 is M/2.

Advantageous Effects of Invention

In accordance with the present invention, it is provided more error robust than conventional IA method and a reduction of feedback overhead.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows a framework of the interference alignment.

FIG. 2 shows a CSI exchange method (method 1).

FIG. 3 illustrates a conventional full-feedback method.

FIG. 4 shows an example of star feedback method method (method 3).

FIG. 5 shows the procedure of CSI exchange method in case that K is 4.

FIG. 6 shows the procedure of CSI exchange method based on precoded RS in case that K is 4.

FIG. 7 illustrates feedback information at each receiver for efficient interference alignment method for 3 cell MIMO interference channel with limited feedback.

FIG. 8 shows sum rate performance, total number of stream of the method of FIG. 7 and the other methods.

MODE FOR THE INVENTION

In a wireless network with multiple interfering links, interference alignment(IA) uses precoding to align at each receiver the interference components from different sources. As a result, in the high SNR regime, the network capacity scales logarithmically with the signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) and linearly with half of the number of parallel sub-channels, called degrees of freedom (DoF). In addition, in the presence of multi-antennas, the capacity also scales linearly with the spatial DoF per link. IA has been proved to be optimal in terms of DoF.

This motivates extensive research on IA methods for various types of channels and settings, including MIMO channel, cellular networks, distributed IA, IA in the signal space and limited feedback. However, most existing works on IA rely on the impractical assumption that each transmitter in an IA network requires perfect CSI of all interference channels. Some preliminary results have been obtained on the scaling laws of numbers of CSI feedback bits with respect to the SNR under the IA constraint. However, there exist no designs of practical CSI feedback algorithms for IA networks.

To facilitate the description of present invention, the framework of the Interference alignment related to the present invention will be explained firstly.

FIG. 1 shows a framework of the interference alignment.

Referring FIG. 1, the framework of the the interference alignment comprises a cooperative CSI exchange, a transmission power control and a interference misalignment control.

1. Cooperative CSI exchange: Transmit beamformers will be aligned progressively by iterative cooperative CSI exchange between interferers and their interfered receivers. In each round of exchange, a subset of transmitters receive CSI from a subset of receivers and relay the CSI to a different subset of receivers. Based on this approach, CSI exchange methods are optimized for minimizing the number of CSI transmission links and the dimensionality of exchanged CSI, resulting in small network overhead.

2. Transmission power control: Given finite-rate CSI exchange, quantization errors in CSI cause interference misalignment. To control the resultant residual interference, methods are invented to support exchange of transmission power control (TPC) signals between interferers and receivers to regulate the transmission power of interferers under different users' quality-of-service (QoS) requirements. Since IA is decentralized and links are coupled, multiple rounds of TPC exchange may be required.

3. Interference misalignment control: Besides interferers' transmission power, another factor that influences interference power is the degrees of interference misalignment (IM) of transmit beamformers, which increase with CSI quantization errors and vice versa. The IM degrees are regulated by adapting the resolutions of feedback CSI to satisfy users' QoS requirements. This requires the employment of hierarchical codebooks at receivers that support variable quantization resolutions. Designing IM control policies is formulated as an optimization problem of minimizing network feedback overhead under the link QoS constraints. Furthermore, the policies are optimized using stochastic optimization to compress feedback in time.

In addition, it will be described a star feedback method, a efficient interference alignment for 3-cell MIMO interference channel with limited feedback.

4. Star Feedback Method: For achieving IA, each precoder is aligned to other precoders and thus its computation can be centralized at central unit, which is called CSI base station (CSI-BS). In star feedback method, CSI-BS gathers CSI of interference from all receivers and computes the precoders. Then, each receiver only feeds CSI back to CSI-BS, not to all transmitters. For this reason, star feedback method can effectively scale down CSI overhead compared with conventional feedback method.

5. Efficient interference alignment for 3 cell MIMO interference channel with limited feedback: Conventional IA solution for achieving the optimal DoF and a special case IA solution requires product of all cross link channel information since all precoders are coupled. When limited feedback channel is assumed, channel matrix product arises a critical problem that there is a K-fold increase in error of initial precoder due to multiplied and summed channel quantization errors. IA solution for achieving the optimal DoF may not be optimal in practical number of feedback bits.

To avoid the product of channel matrices and get better performance, a DoF fallowing method is proposed. If one node does not use α DoF, IA solution is separated to several independent equation, resulting in avoiding the product of all cross link channel matrices and reducing feedback overhead.

Firstly, a system model is described.

I. System Model

we introduce the system model of K user MIMO interference channel and define the metric of network overhead that is required for implementing IA precoder.

Consider K user interference channel, where K transmitter-receiver links exist on the same spectrum and each transmitter send an independent data stream to its corresponding receiver while it interferers with other receivers. Assuming every transmitter-receiver node is equipped with M antennas, the channel between transmitter and receiver is modeled as M×M independent MIMO block channel consisting of path-loss and small-scale fading components. Specifically, it is denoted the channel from the j-th transmitter and the k-th receiver as d_(kj) ^(−α/2) H^([kj]), where α is the path-loss exponent, d_(kj) is the distance between transmitter and receiver and H^([kj]) is M×M matrix of independently and identically distributed circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random variables with zero mean and unit variance, denoted as CN(0,1).

Let denote v^([k]) and r^([k]) as a (M×1) beamforming vector and receive filter at the k-th transceiver, where ∥v^([k])∥²=∥r^([k]∥) ²=1. A beamforming vector can be called other terminologies such as beamformer or a precoding vector. Then, the received signal at the k-th receiver can be expressed as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {y^{\lbrack k\rbrack} = {{H^{\lbrack{kk}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack k\rbrack}s_{k}} + {\sum\limits_{j \neq k}{H^{\lbrack{kj}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack j\rbrack}s_{j}}} + n_{k}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 1} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

and the sum rate is calculated as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {R_{sum} = {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\log_{2}\left( {1 + \frac{\frac{P}{d_{kk}^{\alpha}}{{r^{{\lbrack k\rbrack}\dagger}H^{\lbrack{kk}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack k\rbrack}}}^{2}}{{\sum\limits_{k \neq j}{\frac{P}{d_{kj}^{\alpha}}{{r^{{\lbrack k\rbrack}\dagger}H^{\lbrack{kj}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack j\rbrack}}}^{2}}} + \sigma^{2}}} \right)}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 2} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

where s_(k) denotes a data symbol sent by the k-th transmitter with E[|s_(k|) ²]=P and n_(k) is additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) vector with covariance matrix σ²I_(m).

Under the assumption of perfect and global CSI, IA aims to align interference on the lower dimensional subspace of the received signal space so that each receiver simply cancels interferers and acquires K interference-free signal space using zero-forcing (ZF) receive filter satisfying following equation.

r ^([k]) †H ^([kj]) v ^([j])=0, ∀k≠j   [equation 3]

Therefore, the achievable sum rate of IA is computed by below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {R_{sum} = {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\log_{2}\left( {1 + {\frac{P}{\sigma^{2}}d_{kk}^{- \alpha}{{r^{{\lbrack k\rbrack}\dagger}H^{\lbrack{kk}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack k\rbrack}}}^{2}}} \right)}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 4} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

It is assumed that each receiver, say the m-th receiver, perfectly estimates all interference channels, namely the set of matrices {H^([mk])}_(k=1) ^(K). Also, it is considered the case where CSI can be sent in both directions between a transmitter and a receiver.

II. CSI Feedback Methods

In MIMO constant channel, the closed form solution of IA in K=3 user is presented in prior arts. And the solution of K=M+1 with a single data stream at transmitter-receiver pairs is proposed in prior arts. However, such closed form solutions in general K user interference channel are still open problem. Here, three CSI feedback methods, namely the 1. CSI exchange method(method 1), 2. modified CSI exchange method(method 2) and 3. star feedback method(method 3) are described for achieving IA under the constraints K=M+1. Also, we compare the efficiency of each feedback method with sum overhead defined as the total number of complex CSI coefficients transmitted in the network for a given channel realization expressed in equation 5.

$\begin{matrix} {N = {\sum\limits_{m,{k \in {\{{1,2,\ldots,K}\}}}}\left( {N_{TR}^{\lfloor{mk}\rfloor} + N_{RT}^{\lfloor{mk}\rfloor}} \right)}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 5} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

In equation 5, N_(TR) ^([mk]) denotes the integer equal to the number of complex CSI coefficients sent from the k-th receiver to the m-th transmitter, and N_(RT) ^([mk]) from the k-th transmitter to the m-th receiver.

FIG. 2 shows a CSI exchange method(method 1).

Assuming each pair of transmitter-receiver gets one multiplexing gain under the constraint K=M+1, the set of interference {H^([mk]v) ^([k])}_(k=1;k≠m) ^(K) at each receiver should be aligned on the subspace of dimension at most M−1 to satisfy IA condition which described in equation 3. That is to say, at least two of all interferers are designed on the same subspace at the receiver as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{{{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack{{1K} - 1}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack{K - 1}\rbrack}} \right)} = {{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack{1K}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack K\rbrack}} \right)}}{{{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack{2K}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack K\rbrack}} \right)} = {{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack 21\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}} \right)}}{{{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack 31\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}} \right)} = {{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack 32\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 2\rbrack}} \right)}}\vdots {{{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack{{KK} - 2}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack{K - 2}\rbrack}} \right)} = {{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack{{KK} - 1}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack{K - 1}\rbrack}} \right)}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 6} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

In equation 6, span(A) denotes the vector space that spanned by the columns of A and each equation satisfies that span (H^([k+2k])v^([k]))=span (H^([k+2k+1])v^([k+1]))(i.e. span(v^([k]))=span (H^([k+2k]))⁻¹H^([k+2k+1])v^([k+1]))). As concatenating {span (v^([k]))}_(k=1) ^(K), IA beamformers are computed by below equation and then normalized to have unit norm.

$\begin{matrix} {{v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack} = {{any}\mspace{14mu} {eigenvector}\mspace{14mu} {of}\mspace{14mu} \left( H^{\lbrack 21\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}{H^{\lbrack{2K}\rbrack}\left( H^{\lbrack{1K}\rbrack} \right)}^{- 1}H^{\lbrack{{1K} - 1}\rbrack}\mspace{14mu} \ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( H^{\lbrack 32\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 31\rbrack}}}\mspace{79mu} {v^{\lbrack 2\rbrack} = {\left( H^{\lbrack 32\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 31\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}}}\mspace{79mu} \vdots \mspace{79mu} {v^{\lbrack{K - 1}\rbrack} = {\left( H^{\lbrack{{KK} - 1}\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack{{KK} - 2}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack{K - 2}\rbrack}}}\mspace{79mu} {v^{\lbrack K\rbrack} = {\left( H^{\lbrack{1K}\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack{{1K} - 1}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack{K - 1}\rbrack}}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 7} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

The solution of k-th beamformer v^([k]) in equation 7 is serially determined by the product of pre-determined v^([k−]) and channel matrixk(H^([k+1k−1])) ⁻¹H^([k+1k−1]).

Hereinafter, using the property that v^([k]) is serially determined, CSI exchange method(method 1) will be described. Hereinafter, it is assumed that K=4, M=3.

1. First, transmitters determine which interferers are aligned on the same subspace at each receiver. Then, each transmitter informs its corresponding receiver of the indices of two interferers to be aligned in the same direction. This process is called set-up.

2. Receiver k(∀k≠3) feeds back the product matrix (H^([21]−1)H^([2K]), . . . , (H^([32]))⁻¹H^([31]) to receiver 3 which determines v^([1]) as any eigenvector of (H^([21])) ⁻¹H^([2K])(H^([1K]))⁻¹H^([1K−1]) . . . (H^([32])) ⁻¹H^([31]). Then, v^([1]) is fed back to transmitter 1.

3. Computation of v^([2]), . . . , v^([K−1]): Transmitter k−1 feeds forward v^([k−1]) to receiver k+1. Then, receiver k+1 calculates v^([k]) using equation 7 and feeds back v^([k]) to transmitter k. This process is performed for k=2 to K−1.

4. computation of v^([k]).

Transmitter K−1 feeds forward v^([K-1]) to receiver 1. Then, receiver 1 calculates v^([K]) using equation 7 and feeds back v^([K]) to transmitter K.

In CSI exchange method, two interferers are aligned at each receiver among K−1 interferers. Therefore, the receiver requires the indices of two interferers to be aligned before starting the computation and exchange procedure of {v^([1]), . . . , v^([K])}. The signals for a set-up are forwarded through a control channel from transmitter to corresponding receiver. These set-up signals are forwarded through B_(setup) bits control channel from transmitter to corresponding receiver and its overhead is computed in following lemma.

Lemma 1. The set-up overhead for the CSI exchange method is given as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {B_{setup} = \left\lceil {K \cdot {\log_{2}\left( \frac{\left( {K - 1} \right)\left( {K - 2} \right)}{2} \right)}} \right\rceil} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 8} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Each receiver has K−1 interferers from other transmitters. Therefore, _(K−1)C₂ groups of aligned interferers exist at each receiver, where _(K−1)C₂=(K−1)(K−2)/2. To inform each of K receivers about the group of aligned interferers, total

$\left\lceil {K \cdot {\log_{2}\left( \frac{\left( {K - 1} \right)\left( {K - 2} \right)}{2} \right)}} \right\rceil$

bits are required for the set-up signaling.

Once the aligned interferers are indicated at the receiver, each receiver feeds back CSI of the selected interferers in given channel realization and the beamformers v^([1]), v^([2]), . . . , v^([K]) are sequentially determined by method 1. The overhead for the CSI exchange method can be measured in terms of the number of exchanged complex channel coefficients. Such overhead is specified in the following proposition.

Proposition 1

For the CSI exchange method in MIMO channel, the network overhead is given as below equation.

N _(EX)=(K−1)M ²+(2K−1)M   [equation 9]

All receivers inform CSI of the product channel matrices to receiver 3, which comprises (K−1)M² nonzero coefficients. After computing the beamformer v^([1]), M nonzero coefficients are required to feed it back to transmitter 1. Each beamformer is determined by iterative precoder exchange between transmitters and interfered receivers. In each round of exchange, the number of nonzero coefficients of feedforward and feedback becomes 2M. Thus, total network overhead comprises

(K−1)M ²+(2K−1)M.

FIG. 3 illustrates a conventional full-feedback method.

For comparison, the sum overhead for the convention CSI feedback method is illustrated. In the existing IA literature, the design of feedback method is not explicitly addressed. Existing works commonly assume CSI feedback from each receiver to all its interferers, corresponding to the full-feedback method illustrated in FIG. 3. For such a conventional method, each receiver transmits the CSI{H[mk]}_(k=1) ^(K) to each of its K−1 transmitters and the resultant sum overhead is given in the following lemma.

Lemma 2. The sum overhead of the full-feedback method is given as below equation.

N _(FF) =K ²(K−1)M ²   [equation 10]

Each receiver feeds back K×M² nonzero coefficients to K−1 interferers. Since K receivers feed back CSI, total network overhead comprises K²(K−1)M².

From the above result, the overhead N_(FF) increases approximately as K³M² whereas the network throughput grows linearly with K. Thus the network overhead is potentially a limiting factor of the network throughput. By comparing proposition 1 and lemma 2, with respect to the full-feedback method, the CSI exchange method requires much less sum overhead for achieving IA, namely on the order of KM².

In the CSI exchange method described above, v^([1]) is solved by the eigenvalue problem that incorporates the channel matrices of all interfering links. However, it still requires a huge overhead in networks with many links or antennas. To suppress CSI overhead of v^([1]), we may apply the follow additional constraints indicated by a below equation.

span(H ^([i1]) v ^([1])=span() H ^([i2]) v ^([2]))

span(H ^([i+11]) v ^([1]))=span(H ^([i+12]) v ^([2]))   [equation 11]

In equation 11, i is not 1 or 2. As v^([1]) and v^([2]) are aligned on same dimension at receiver i and i+1, v^([1]) is computed as the eigenvalue problem of (H^([i1]))⁻¹H^([i2])(H^([i+12]))⁻¹H^([i+11]) that consists of two interfering product matrices.

Applying the properties expressed in equation 11 at receiver K−1 and K, it can be reformulated IA condition under K=M+1 constraints as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{{{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack 12\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 2\rbrack}} \right)} = {{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack 13\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 3\rbrack}} \right)}}{{{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack 23\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 3\rbrack}} \right)} = {{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack 24\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 4\rbrack}} \right)}}\vdots {{{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack{K - 11}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}} \right)} = {{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack{K - 12}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 2\rbrack}} \right)}}{{{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack{K\; 1}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}} \right)} = {{span}\mspace{11mu} \left( {H^{\lbrack{K\; 2}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 2\rbrack}} \right)}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 12} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

It follows that v^([1]), v^([2]), . . . , v^([K]) can be selected as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack} = {{eigenvector}\mspace{14mu} {of}\mspace{14mu} \left( H^{\lbrack{K - 11}\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}{H^{\lbrack{K - 12}\rbrack}\left( H^{\lbrack{K\; 2}\rbrack} \right)}^{- 1}H^{\lbrack{K\; 1}\rbrack}}}\mspace{79mu} {v^{\lbrack 2\rbrack} = {\left( H^{\lbrack{K\; 2}\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack{K\; 1}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}}}\mspace{79mu} {v^{\lbrack 3\rbrack} = {\left( H^{\lbrack 13\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 12\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 2\rbrack}}}\mspace{85mu} \vdots \mspace{79mu} {v^{\lbrack K\rbrack} = {\left( H^{\lbrack{K - {2K}}\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack{K - {2K} - 1}\rbrack}{v^{\lbrack{K - 1}\rbrack}.}}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 13} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Using the equation 13, the CSI exchange method can be modified. The modified CSI exchange method can be called a method 2 for a convenience. The method 2 comprises following procedures.

1. First, transmitters determine which interferers are aligned on the same subspace at each receiver. Then, each transmitter informs its corresponding receiver of the indices of two interferers to be aligned in the same direction(set-up).

2. Receiver K forwards the matrix (H^([K2]))⁻¹H^([K1]) to receiver K−1. Then, receiver K−1 computes v^([1]) as any eigenvector of (H^([K−11]))⁻¹H^([K−12])(H^([K2]))⁻¹H^([K1]) and feeds back it to the transmitter 1.

3. Transmitter 1 feeds forward v^([1]) to receiver K. Then, receiver K calculates v^([2]) and feeds back v^([2]) to transmitter 2.

4. Computation of v^([3]), . . . , v^([K])

Transmitter k−1 feeds forward v^([k−1]) to receiver k−2. Then, receiver k−2 calculates v^([k]) and feeds back v^([k]) to transmitter k−1. This process is performed for k=3 to K.

The corresponding sum overhead of modified CSI exchange method(method 2) is given in the following equation.

N _(MEX) =M ²+(2K−1)M   [equation 14]

Comparing the method 2 with the method 1, both methods show the same burden of overhead for the exchange of beamformers. However, the product channel matrix for v^([1]) in Modified CSI exchange method requires constant M² overhead in any K user case while overhead of v^([1]) in CSI exchange method increases with KM².

The CSI exchange methods(method 1, method 2) in previous description degrade the amount of network overhead compared with conventional full feedback method. However, it requires 2K−1 iterations for the exchange of beamformers in method 1 and 2. As the number of iterations is increased, a full DoF in K user channel cannot be achievable since it causes time delay that results in significant interference mis-alignment for fast fading. To compensate for these drawbacks, we suggest the star feedback method illustrated in FIG. 4.

FIG. 4 shows an example of star feedback method method(method 3).

Referring FIG. 4, wireless network comprises a CSI-base station, a plurality of transmitters, a plurality of receivers. The wireless network using the star feedback method comprises an agent, called the CSI base station(CSI-BS) which collects CSI from all receivers, computes all beamformers using IA condition in equation 7 or equation 13 and sends them back to corresponding transmitters. This method 3 is feasible since the computation of beamformers for IA is linked with each other and same interference matrices are commonly required for those beamformers. In large K, the star method allows much smaller delay compared with CSI exchange methods(method 1, method 2).

Star feedback method for IA in wireless network will be described.

1. Initialization: CSI-BS determines which interferers are aligned on the same dimension at each receiver. Then, it informs each receiver of the required channel information for computing IA.

2. Computation of v^([1]), . . . , v^([K]): The CSI-BS collects CSI from all receivers that comprises K×M² nonzero coefficients and computes beamformers v^([1]), . . . , v^([K]) with the collected set of CSI.

3. Broadcasting v^([1]), . . . , v^([K]): CSI-BS forwards v^([k]) to transmitter k for k=1, . . . , K, which requires M nonzero coefficient to each of K transmitters.

For the star feedback method in MIMO channel, the network overhead is given as below equation.

N _(SF)=(M ² +M)K   [equation 15]

Star feedback method requires only two time slots for computation of IA beamformers in any number of user K. Therefore, it is robust against channel variations due to the fast fading while CSI exchange methods are affected by 2K−1 slot delay for implementation. However, the network overhead of star feedback method is increased with KM² which is larger than 2KM in modified CSI exchange method. Also, star feedback method requires CSI-BS that connects all pairs of transmitter-receiver should be implemented as the additional costs.

The Network overhead of star feedback method can be quantified as below.

i) The overhead for initialization: Each receiver has K−1 interferers from other transmitters. Therefore, _(k−1)C₂ groups of aligned interferers exist at each receiver, where _(k−1)C₂=(K−1)(K−2)/2. To inform each receiver about the group of aligned interferers, total Klog₂((K−1)(K−2)/2) bits are required for initial signaling.

ii) Feedback overhead for star feedback method: The CSI-BS collects CSI of product channels from all receivers that comprises KM² nonzero coefficients. After computing the precoding vectors, CSI-BS transmits a precoder of M nonzero coefficient to each of K transmitters. Therefore, (KM²+2M) nonzero coefficients are required for feedback in star feedback method.

The above result shows that the network overhead for the star feedback method is a linear function of K in contrast with the cubic function for conventional feedback method in MIMO channel. Thus the former method leads to a much slower increase of network overhead with K.

III. Effect of Csi Feedback Quantization

In the preceding description, the CSI feedback methods are designed on the assumption of perfect CSI exchange. However, CSI feedback from receiver to transmitter requires the channel quantization under the finite-rate feedback constraints in practical implementation. This quantized CSI causes the degradation of system performance due to the residual interference at each receiver. In this section, we characterize the throughput loss as the performance degradation in limited feedback. Furthermore, we derive an upper-bound of sum residual interference as the throughput loss and analyze it as a function of the number of feedback bits in given channel realization.

A. Throughput Loss in Limited Feedback

For the analytical simplicity, let define the throughput loss,

ΔR_(sum)

as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\Delta \; R_{sum}}:={E_{H}\begin{bmatrix} {{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\log_{2}\left( \frac{{Pd}_{kk}^{- \alpha}{{r^{\lbrack{k:\dagger}}H^{\lbrack{kk}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack k\rbrack}}}^{2}}{\sigma^{2}} \right)}} -} \\ {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\log_{2}\left( \frac{{Pd}_{kk}^{- \alpha}{{r^{{\lbrack k\rbrack}\dagger}H^{\lbrack{kk}\rbrack}v^{\lbrack k\rbrack}}}^{2}}{{\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack} + \sigma^{2}} \right)}} \end{bmatrix}}} \\ {= {{E_{H}\left\lbrack {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\log_{2}\left( {\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack} \right)}} \right\rbrack}\overset{(a)}{\leq}{E_{H}\left\lbrack {K\; {\log_{2}\left( {\frac{1}{K}{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack}}} \right)}} \right\rbrack}}} \end{matrix} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 16} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

In equation 16,

{circumflex over (v)}^([k])

and

{circumflex over (r)}^([k])

are the transmit beamformer and receive filter based on the quantized CSI and ‘(a)’ follows from the characteristic of concave function log(x), denoting

${{{{{\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack} = {\sum\limits_{{j = 1},{j \neq k}}^{K}\frac{P}{d_{kj}^{\alpha}}}}}{\hat{r}}^{{\lbrack k\rbrack}\dagger}H^{\lbrack{kj}\rbrack}{\hat{v}}^{\lbrack j\rbrack}}}^{2}$

Applying Jensen's inequality, the throughout loss is upper-bounded by below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{\Delta \; R_{sum}} \leq {K\; {\log_{2}\left( {\frac{1}{K}{E_{H}\left\lbrack {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack}} \right\rbrack}} \right)}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 17} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

In equation 17,

ΔR_(sum)

is significantly affected by the sum residual interference

${\hat{I}}^{sum} = {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{{\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack}.}}$

Therefore, the minimization of sum rate loss is equivalent to the minimization of sum residual interference caused by limited feedback bit constraints.

B. Residual Interference in the Proposed CSI Feedback Methods

Prior to deriving the bound of sum residual interference in proposed CSI feedback methods, we quantify the quantization error with RVQ using the distortion measure.

Let denote h:=vec(H)/∥H∥,

ĥ:=vec(Ĥ)/∥Ĥ∥_(F)

and the phase rotation,

e^(jφ):=ĥ^(†)h/|ĥ^(†)h|,

where

H, H∈C^(N×M).

Then, h can be expressed by below equation.

h−e ^(jφ) ĥ+Δh   [equation 18]

In equation 18,

Δh

represents the difference between h and

e^(jφ)ĥ.

H is follows below equation.

ΔH

is defined such that

vec(ΔH)−Δh.

H=e^(jφ)Ĥ|ΔH

Lemma 3. The expected squared norm of the random matrix

Δh

is bounded as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{E\left\lbrack {{\Delta \; H}}_{F}^{2} \right\rbrack} \leq {2\; {{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}({MN})} \cdot 2^{- \frac{B}{{MN} - 1}}}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 20} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

In equation 20, B denotes quantization bit for H and

${\overset{\_}{\Gamma}({MN})} = {\frac{2\; {\Gamma \left( \frac{1}{{MN} - 1} \right)}}{{MN} - 1}.}$

Using properties of lemma 3, we rewrite equation 18 and equation 19 as below equation.

h=e ^(jφ) ĥ+σ _(Δh) Δ{tilde over (h)}  [equation 21]

H−e ^(jφ) Ĥ+σ _(Δh) Δ{tilde over (H)}{tilde over (,)}  [equation 21]

In equation 21,

Δh−σ _(Δh) Δ{tilde over (h)}, E[∥Δ{tilde over (h)}∥ ²]−1, E[∥Δ{tilde over (H)}∥ ² _(F)]−1

and

$\sigma_{\Delta \; h}^{2} \leq {{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}({MN})} \cdot {2^{- \frac{B}{{MN} - 1}}.}}$

Also, we derive the error bound of eigenvector of the quantized matrix, which is applied to analyze the sensitivity towards quantization error on the initialization of v^([1]). Based on the modeling of quantization error of H in equation 22, we derive the eigenvector of

Ĥ

using the perturbation theory in following lemma.

Lemma 4. For a large B, the m-th eigenvector

{circumflex over (v)}_(m)

of

Ĥ

is given as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{\hat{v}}_{m} = {^{{- j}\; \phi}\left( {v_{m} - {\sigma_{\Delta \; h}{\sum\limits_{{k = 1},{k \neq m}}^{M}{\frac{v_{k}^{*}\Delta \; \overset{\sim}{H}v_{m}}{\lambda_{m} - \lambda_{k}}v_{k}}}}} \right)}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 22} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

In equation 22, v_(m) and λ_(m) are the m-th eigenvector and eigenvalue of H.

1) Modified CSI exchange method: As the modified CSI exchange method requires smaller sum overhead than that of CSI exchange method, we derive the upper bound of residual interference in modified CSI exchange method that consists of two types of feedback channel links: i) Feedback of the channel matrix for the initial v^([1])and ii) Sequential exchange of the quantized beamformer between transmitter and receiver.

For the initialization of v^([1]), the K-th receiver transmits the product channel matrix H eff^(K) to the (K−1)th receiver for the computation of v^([1]) which is designed as the eigenvector of H_(eff) ^([K−1])H_(eff) ^([K]), where

$H_{eff}^{\lbrack{K - 1}\rbrack}:{- \frac{\left( H^{\lfloor{K - 11}\rfloor} \right)^{1}H^{\lfloor{K - 12}\rfloor}}{{{\left( H^{\lbrack{K - 11}\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack{K - 12}\rbrack}}}_{F}}}$ and $H_{eff}^{\lbrack K\rbrack}:={\frac{\left( H^{\lbrack{K\; 2}\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack{K\; 1}\rbrack}}{{{\left( H^{\lceil{K\; 2}\rceil} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lceil{K\; 1}\rceil}}}_{F}}.}$

Assuming that RVQ is applied and the quantized matrix Ĥ^([K]) _(eff)

is transmitted through B_(initial) bits feedback channel, the quantized channel matrix is expressed as below equation.

Ĥ ^([K]) _(eff) =e ^(−jφinitial)(H ^([K]) _(eff)−σ_(initial)ΔĤ ^([K]) _(eff))

In equation 23,

$\sigma_{initial}^{2} \leq {{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}\left( M^{2} \right)}2^{- \frac{B_{initial}}{M^{2} - 1}}}$

and

E[∥ΔĤ ^([K]) _(eff)∥² _(F)]=1.

Then, K−1-th receiver computes the quantized beamformer

{circumflex over (v)}^([1])

of

H_(eff) ^([K−1])Ĥ_(eff) ^([K])

as below equation.

{circumflex over (v)} ^([1]) =e ^(−jφinitial)(v ^([1]) −Δv ^([1]))   [equation 24]

In equation 24, the quantization error

Δv[^(1])

is expressed by below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{\Delta \; v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}} = {\sigma_{initial}{\sum\limits_{{k = 1},{k \neq m}}^{M}{\frac{v_{k}^{*}H_{eff}^{\lfloor{K - 1}\rfloor}\Delta \; {\hat{H}}_{eff}^{\lfloor K\rfloor}v_{m}}{\lambda_{m} - \lambda_{k}}v_{k}}}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 25} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

In equation 25, v_(m) and λ_(i) are the m-th eigenvector and eigenvalue of H_(eff) ^([K−1])H_(eff) ^([K]),

Since the magnitude of quantization error

∥Δv^([1])∥²

is represented as below equation, the quantization error of limited feedback is affected by exponential function of B_(initial) and the distribution of eigenvalues |λ_(m)−λ_(k)|.

$\begin{matrix} {{{\Delta \; v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}}}^{2} \propto {\sum\limits_{{k = 1},{k \neq m}}^{M}\frac{\sigma_{initial}^{2}}{{{\lambda_{m} - \lambda_{k}}}^{2}}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 26} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Secondly, the effect of quantization error due to the exchange of beamformers between transmitters and receivers is described. On the assumption of perfect CSI of H eff^([K]) at receiver K−1, it is considered the limited feedback links from receiver to transmitter, where B_(k) bits are allocated to quantize

{circumflex over (v)}^([k]).

From modified CSI exchange method(method 2), receiver K−1 computes v^([1]) and quantize it to

{circumflex over (v)}^([1])

with RVQ and feeds back to transmitter 1 through B₁ feedback channel. The quantized beamformer

{circumflex over (v)}^([1])

is represented as below equation.

{circumflex over (v)} ^([1]) −e ^(−jφK−1)(v ^([1])−σ₁ Δv ^([1]))   [equation 27]

In equation 27,

σ₁ ²=Γ(M)2 ^(')

and

E[∥Δv ^([1])∥²]=1.

Following the procedure of method 2, transmitter 1 forwards

{circumflex over (v)}^([1])

to receiver K. The receiver K designs

{dot over (v)}^([2])

on the subspace of

H_(eff) ^([K]){circumflex over (v)}^([1])

as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{v}}^{\lbrack 2\rbrack} = {H_{eff}^{\lbrack K\rbrack}{\hat{v}}^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}}} \\ {= {^{{- j}\; \phi_{1}}\left( {{H_{eff}^{\lbrack K\rbrack}v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}} - {\sigma_{1}H_{eff}^{\lbrack K\rbrack}\Delta \; v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}}} \right)}} \\ {= {^{{- j}\; \phi_{1}}\left( {v^{\lbrack 2\rbrack} - {\sigma_{1}H_{eff}^{\lbrack K\rbrack}\Delta \; v^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}}} \right)}} \end{matrix} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 28} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Then, receiver K quantizes

{dot over (v)}^([2])

is quantized to

{circumflex over (v)}^([2])

with B₂ bit quantization level and informed to transmitter 2. The quantized precoder

{circumflex over (v)}^([2])

is represented as below equation.

{circumflex over (v)} ^([2]) =e ^(−jφ2)({dot over (v)} ^([2])−σ₂ Δv ^([2]))   [equation 29]

In equation 29,

$\sigma_{2}^{2} = {{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}(M)}2^{- \frac{B_{2}}{M - 1}}}$

and

E[∥Δv ^([2])∥²]=1.

Likewise, the other beamformers

{dot over (v)}^([3]), {dot over (v)}^([4]), . . . , and {dot over (v)}^([K])

are designed at receiver 1, 2, . . . , and K−2 and their quantized beamformers

{circumflex over (v)}^([2]), {circumflex over (v)}^([4]), . . . , and {circumflex over (v)}^([K])

are fed back to their corresponding transmitters, where

{circumflex over (v)}^([k])

is modeled as below equation.

v ^([k]) =e ^(−jφk)({dot over (v)} ^([k])−σ_(k) Δv ^([k]))   [equation 30]

In equation 30,

$\sigma_{k}^{2} = 2^{- \frac{B_{k}}{M - 1}}$

and

E[∥Δv^([k])∥²]=1,

for k=3, 4, . . . , K.

Using equation 28, 29 and 30, the sum residual interference affected by quantization error can be analyzed. To analyze the residual interference at each receiver, it is assumed that each receiver designs a zero-forcing receiver with a full knowledge of

{v^([k]): 1≦k≦K},

which cancels M−1 dimensional interferers. Then, the upper-bound of expected sum residual interference is expressed as a function of the feedback bits, the eigenvalue of fading channel and distance between the pairs of transmitter-receiver is suggested as below.

Proposition 3. In modified CSI feedback method, the upper-bound of expected residual interference at each receiver is represented as below equation in given feedback bits {B_(k)}_(k=1) ^(K) and channel realization {H^([jk])}_(j,k=1) ^(K).

                                [equation  31] $\left\{ \begin{matrix} {{{E\left\lbrack {\hat{I}}^{\lfloor k\rfloor} \right\rbrack} \leq {{Pd}_{{kk} + 2}^{- \alpha}\sigma_{k + 2}^{2}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{{kk} + 2}\rbrack}}},\mspace{11mu} {{{for}\mspace{14mu} k} = 1},\ldots \mspace{14mu},{K - 2}} \\ {{E\left\lbrack {\hat{I}}^{\lbrack{K - 1}\rbrack} \right\rbrack} \leq {{Pd}_{K - 11}^{- \alpha}\left( {\sigma_{2}^{2}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K - 12}\rbrack}{{\sigma_{1}^{2}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K - 12}\rbrack}}}\sigma_{1}^{2}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K - 11}\rbrack}} \right)}} \\ {{E\left\lbrack {\hat{I}}^{\lbrack K\rbrack} \right\rbrack} \leq {{Pd}_{K\; 2}^{- \alpha}\sigma_{2}^{2}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K\; 2}\rbrack}}} \end{matrix} \right.$

2) Star feedback method: In star feedback method, it is assumed that all receivers are connected to CSI-BS with high capacity backhaul links, such as cooperative multicell networks. Then, CSI-BS is allowed to acquire full knowledge of CSI estimated at each receiver. Based on equation 13, CSI-BS computes v^([1]), v^([2]), . . . ,v^([K]) and forwards them to the corresponding transmitters. In this section, we consider the B_(k) feedback bits constraint from CSI-BS to transmitter k and v^([k]) is quantized as below equation.

{circumflex over (v)} ^([k]) =e ^(−jφk)(v ^([k])−σ_(k) Δv ^([k]))   [equation 32]

In equation 32,

$\sigma_{k}^{2} = {{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}(M)}2^{- \frac{B_{k}}{M - 1}}}$

and

E[∥Δv ^([k])∥²]=1.

Given the quantized beamformer, each transmitter sends a data stream that causes the residual interference at the receiver. Following proposition provides the upper-bound of expected residual interference at each receiver that consists of the feedback bits, the eigenvalue of fading channel and distance between the pairs of transmitter-receiver.

Proposition 4. In star feedback method, the upper-bound of expected residual interference at each receiver is represented in given feedback bits {B_(k)}_(k=1) ^(K) and channel realization {H^([jk])}_(j,k=1) ^(K) below equation.

                                     [equation  33] $\left\{ \begin{matrix} {{{{E\left\lbrack {\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack} \right\rbrack} \leq {{{Pd}_{{kk} + 2}^{- \alpha}\sigma_{k + 1}^{2}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{{kk} + 1}\rbrack}} + {{Pd}_{{kk} + 2}^{- \alpha}\sigma_{k + 2}^{2}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{{kk} + 2}\rbrack}\mspace{14mu} {for}\mspace{14mu} k}}} = 1},\ldots \mspace{14mu},{K - 2}} \\ {{E\left\lbrack {\hat{I}}^{\lbrack{K - 1}\rbrack} \right\rbrack} \leq {{{Pd}_{K - 11}^{- \alpha}\sigma_{1}^{2}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K - 11}\rbrack}} + {{Pd}_{K - 11}^{- \alpha}\sigma_{2}^{2}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K - 12}\rbrack}}}} \\ {{E\left\lbrack {\hat{I}}^{\lbrack K\rbrack} \right\rbrack} \leq {{{Pd}_{K\; 2}^{- \alpha}\sigma_{1}^{2}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K\; 1}\rbrack}} + {{Pd}_{K\; 2}^{- \alpha}\sigma_{2}^{2}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K\; 2}\rbrack}}}} \end{matrix} \right.$

IV. Dynamic Feedback Bit Allocation Methods for CSI Feedback Methods

The system performance of IA is significantly affected by the number of feedback bits that induces residual interference in a finite rate feedback channel. The dynamic feedback bit allocation strategies that minimize the throughput loss due to the quantization error in given sum feedback bits constraint is explained. Furthermore, It is provided the required number of feedback bits achieving a full network DoF in each CSI feedback methods.

A. Dynamic Bit Allocation for Minimizing Throughput Loss

Consider total B_(tot) bits are given for the feedback framework in the network model. Since the throughput loss is bounded by the expected sum residual interference, we can formulate the dynamic bit allocation problem for minimizing throughput loss as follows equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{\min \mspace{14mu} {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{E\left\lbrack {\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack} \right\rbrack}}}{{s.t.\mspace{14mu} {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}B_{k}}} \leq B_{tot}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 34} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Using proposition 3 and proposition 4, equation 34 can be transformed to convex optimization problem with variables {B_(k)}_(k=1) ^(K) expressed by below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{\min \mspace{14mu} {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{a_{k}2^{-_{M\mspace{11mu} 1}^{B_{k}}}}}}{{s.t.\mspace{14mu} {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}B_{k}}} \leq B_{tot}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 35} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Here, we define a_(k) in modified CSI exchange method(method 2) as below equation.

                                [equation  36] $\begin{matrix} {a_{k} = \left\{ \begin{matrix} {a_{1} = {{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}(M)} \cdot {P\left( {{d_{K - 11}^{- \alpha}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K - 12}\rbrack}}{d_{K - 11}^{- \alpha}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K - 11}\rbrack}}} \right)}}} \\ {a_{2} - {{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}(M)} \cdot {P\left( {{d_{K\; 2}^{- \alpha}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K\; 2}\rbrack}} + {d_{K - 11}^{- \alpha}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K - 12}\rbrack}}} \right)}}} \\ {{a_{k} = {{{{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}(M)} \cdot {Pd}_{k - {2\; k}}^{- \alpha}}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{k - {2\; k}}\rbrack}\mspace{25mu} {\forall k}} = 3}},\ldots \mspace{11mu},K} \end{matrix} \right.} & \; \end{matrix}$

And, a_(k) in star feedback method as below equation.

                                     [equation  37] $a_{k} = \left\{ \begin{matrix} {a_{1} = {{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}(M)} \cdot {P\left( {{d_{K\; 2}^{\alpha}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K\; 1}\rbrack}} + {d_{K - 11}^{- \alpha}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K - 11}\rbrack}}} \right)}}} \\ {a_{2} = {{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}(M)} \cdot {P\left( {{d_{13}^{- \alpha}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack 12\rbrack}} + {d_{K\; 2}^{- \alpha}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K\; 2}\rbrack}}} \right)}}} \\ {{a_{k} = {{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}(M)} \cdot {P\left( {{d_{k - {1\; k} + 1}^{- \alpha}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{k - {1\; k}}\rbrack}} + {d_{k - {2\; k}}^{{- \alpha}}\lambda^{\lbrack{k - {2\; k}}\rbrack}}} \right)}}},{k = 3},\ldots \mspace{14mu},{K - 1}} \\ {a_{K} = {{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}(M)} \cdot {P\left( {{d_{K - 11}^{- \alpha}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K - {1\; K}}\rbrack}} + {d_{K - {2\; K}}^{- \alpha}\lambda_{\max}^{\lbrack{K - {2\; K}}\rbrack}}} \right)}}} \end{matrix} \right.$

Consider the objective function in equation 35. By forming the lagrangian and taking derivative with respect to B_(k) , it can be expressed by below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{L = {{\sum\limits_{k \in U}{a_{k}2^{- \frac{B_{k}}{M - 1}}}} + {v\left( {{\sum\limits_{k \in U}B_{k}} - B_{tot}} \right)}}}{\frac{\partial L}{\partial B_{k}} = {{{- 2^{- \frac{B_{k}}{M - 1}}}\ln \; 2\frac{a_{k}}{M - 1}} + v - 0}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 38} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

In equation 38, v is the Lagrange multiplier and U is the set of feedback link U={1, . . . K}. Therefore, we obtain B_(k) as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {B_{k} = {{\left( {M - 1} \right) \cdot \log}\; 2\left( \frac{\mu \; a_{k}}{M - 1} \right)}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 39} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

and B_(k) satisfies the following constraint equation where

$\mu = {\frac{\ln \; 2}{v}.}$

$\begin{matrix} {{\sum\limits_{k \in U}{\left( {M - 1} \right) \cdot {\log_{2}\left( \frac{\mu \; a_{k}}{M - 1} \right)}}} = B_{tot}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 40} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Combining equation 39 and 40 with B_(k)≧0, the number of optimal feedback bit is obtained as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{B_{k}^{*} = {\frac{1}{U}\left( {\gamma - {\left( {M - 1} \right) \cdot {U} \cdot {\log_{2}\left( \frac{M - 1}{a_{k}} \right)}}} \right)^{+}}}{\mu = \left( {2^{B_{tot}}{\prod\limits_{k \in U}\; \left( \frac{M - 1}{a_{k}} \right)^{M - 1}}} \right)^{\frac{1}{{({M - 1})} \cdot {U}}}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 41} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

In equation 41,

$\gamma = {B_{tot} + {\sum\limits_{k \in U}{\left( {M - 1} \right) \cdot {\log_{2}\left( \frac{M - 1}{a_{k}} \right)}}}}$

|U| is the cardinality of U and

$(a)^{+} = \left\{ \begin{matrix} a & {{{if}\mspace{14mu} a} \geq 0} \\ 0 & {{{if}\mspace{14mu} a} < 0.} \end{matrix} \right.$

The solution of equation 41 is found iteratively through the waterfilling algorithm, which is described as bellow.

Waterfilling algorithm.

i=0; U={1, . . . , K};

while i=0 do

Determine the water-level

$\gamma = {B_{tot}{\sum\limits_{k \in U}{\left( {M - 1} \right) \cdot {\log_{2}\left( \frac{M - 1}{a_{k}} \right)}}}}$

Choose the user set

$\overset{\_}{k} = {\arg \; \max {\left\{ {\frac{M - 1}{a_{k}}:{k \in U}} \right\}.{if}}}$ ${\gamma - {\left( {M - 1} \right) \cdot {U} \cdot {\log_{2}\left( \frac{M - 1}{a_{\overset{\_}{k}}} \right)}}} \geq 0$

then optimal bit allocation

B*_(k)

in U is determined by equation 43.

i=i+1;

else Let define

U−{U except for k} and

$B_{\overset{\_}{k}}^{*} - 0$

From the waterfilling algorithm, we obtain {B_(k)*:k∈U}. However, B_(k)* should become integer so that it is determined the optimal bit allocation

B*_(k)

as below equation.

B*_(k)=└B*_(k)┘  [equation 42]

In equation 42,

└x┘

is the largest integer not greater than x.

B. Scaling Law of Total Feedback Bits

In perfect CSI assumption, each pair of transmitter-receiver link obtains the interference-free link for its desired data stream. However, misaligned beamformers due to the quantization error destroy the linear scaling gain of sum capacity at high SNR regime. In this section, we analyze the total number of feedback bits that achieve a full network DoF K in the proposed CSI feedback methods. The required sum feedback bits are formulated as the function of the channel gains, the number of antennas and SNR that maintain the constant sum rate loss over the whole SNR regimes.

As P goes to infinity, the network DoF in K user interference channel achieves K with constant value of

$\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\log_{2}\left( {\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack} \right)}$

according to below equation.

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{DoF} = {\lim\limits_{P->\infty}\frac{R_{sum}^{limited}}{\log_{2}P}}} \\ {= {\lim\limits_{P->\infty}\frac{\begin{matrix} {{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\log_{2}\left( {\frac{P}{d_{kk}^{\alpha}}{{{\hat{r}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack}H^{\lbrack{kk}\rbrack}{\hat{v}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack}}}^{2}} \right)}} -} \\ {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{K}{\log_{2}\left( {\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack} \right)}} \end{matrix}}{\log_{2}P}}} \\ {= {{\lim\limits_{P->\infty}\frac{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\log_{2}\left( {\begin{matrix} P \\ d_{kk}^{\alpha} \end{matrix}{{{\hat{r}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack}H^{\lbrack{kk}\rbrack}{\hat{v}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack}}}^{2}} \right)}}{\log_{2}P}} -}} \\ {{\lim\limits_{P->\infty}\frac{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\log_{2}\left( {\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack} \right)}}{\log_{2}P}}} \\ {= {K - {\lim\limits_{P->\infty}\; \frac{\log_{2}\left( {\prod\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack}} \right)}{\log_{2}P}} - K}} \end{matrix} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 43} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Therefore, it can be formulated the sum residual interference as an exponential function of B_(k) as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\log_{2}\left( {\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack} \right)}} = {\log_{2}\left( {\prod\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack}} \right)}} \\ {= {\log_{2}\left( {\prod\limits_{k = 1}^{K}{a_{k}2^{- \frac{B_{k}}{M - 1}}}} \right)}} \\ {= c} \end{matrix} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 44} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Equation 44 yields an equation 45.

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {B_{tot}^{*} = {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{K}B_{k}}} \\ {= {\left( {M - 1} \right) \cdot \left( {{\overset{K}{\sum\limits_{k}}{\log_{2}a_{k}}} - {\log_{2}c}} \right)}} \\ {= {{{K \cdot \left( {M - 1} \right) \cdot \log_{2}}P} + {\left( {M - 1} \right) \cdot \left( {{\sum\limits_{k - 1}^{K}{\log_{2}{\hat{a}}_{k}}} - c} \right)}}} \end{matrix} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{20mu} 45} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

In equation 45, c is constant and c>0 and

a _(k) =P·â _(k) , ∀k.

Since B_(tot)* is the integer number, we obtain the required feedback bits

B*_(tot)

for achieving full DoF as below equation.

B*_(tot)=nint(B*_(tot))

In equation 46, nint(x) is the nearest integer function of x.

C. Implementation of Feedback Bits Controller

As we derived in equation 41 and 45, the computation of

{B*_(k)}^(K) _(k−1)

and

B _(tot)

requires the set of channel gain {a_(k)}_(k=1) ^(K) that consist of the path-loss and short-term fading gain from all receivers. Therefore, the optimal bit allocation strategy requires the centralized bit controller that gathers full knowledge of {a_(k)}_(k=1) ^(K) and computes the optimal set of feedback bits. The centralized bit controller can be feasible in star feedback method since it has a CSI-BS connected with all receivers through the backhaul links.

However, the receiver in CSI exchange method only feeds back CSI to corresponding transmitter, implemented by distributed feedforward/feedback channel links. Therefore, the additional bit controller is required to allocate optimal feedback bits in CSI exchange method. Moreover, {a_(k)}_(k=1) ^(K) includes the gain of short-term fading so that CSI of all receivers should be collected to central controller over every transmission period, which requires a large overhead of CSI exchange and causes delay that results in significant interference misalignment in fast channel variation environments.

1) Path-loss based bit allocation method: To reduce the burden of frequent exchange of channel gains for bit allocation, we average {a_(k)}_(k=1) ^(K) over the short-term fading {H_([ij])}_(i,j=1) ^(K). Consider

$\begin{matrix} {{E_{H}\left\lbrack a_{k} \right\rbrack} = \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{E_{H}\left\lbrack a_{1} \right\rbrack} = {{{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}(M)} \cdot 2}{P \cdot M^{2} \cdot d_{K - 11}^{- \alpha}}}} \\ {{E_{H}\left\lbrack a_{2} \right\rbrack} - {{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}(M)} \cdot {PM}^{2} \cdot \left( {d_{K\; 2}^{- \alpha} + d_{K - 11}^{- \alpha}} \right)}} \\ {{{E_{H}\left\lbrack a_{k} \right\rbrack} = {{{\overset{\_}{\Gamma}(M)} \cdot {PM}^{2} \cdot d_{k - {2k}}^{- \alpha}}k}},{{\forall k} = 3},\ldots \mspace{14mu},K} \end{matrix} \right.} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 47} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

and apply it to equation 36. E_(H)[a_(k)] in modified CSI exchange method is represented as below equation where the expected value of ak's consists of transmit power, the number of antennas and path-loss.

E[λ_(ma x)^([ij])] ≤ M²

Applying equation 47 to 41 and 45, the dynamic bit allocation shceme can be implemented by the path-loss exchange between receivers. Since the path-loss shows a long-term variability compared with fast fading channel, the additional overhead for bit allocation is required over the much longer period than the bit allocation scheme in equation 41 and 45.

2) Distributed bit allocation scheme in CSI exchange method: We develop the distributed bit allocation scheme achieving DoF K in modified CSI exchange method, without centralized bit controller. For the distributed bit allocation, we replace the condition (equation 44) that satisfies DoF K as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\log_{2}\left( {\hat{I}}^{\lbrack k\rbrack} \right)} = {\log_{2}\left( {a_{k}2^{- \frac{B_{k}}{M - 1}}} \right)}} \\ {{= \frac{c}{K}},{{\forall k} = 1},\ldots \mspace{14mu},K} \end{matrix} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 48} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Therefore, the required feedback bit Bk for k-th beamformer is derived as below equation where a_(k) is represented in equation 36.

$\begin{matrix} {B_{k} - {{\left( {M - 1} \right) \cdot \log_{2}}a_{k}} - {{\left( {M - 1} \right) \cdot \log_{2}}\frac{c}{K}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 49} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Combining equation 49 with 36, each receiver can compute the required feedback bits with its own channel knowledge except for receiver K. Receiver K requires additional knowledge of

d_(K − 11)^(−α)λ_(ma x)^([K − 12])

from receiver K−1 to calculate a₂. From equation 49, it is provided the design of modified CSI exchange method with bit allocation of achieving IA in distributed manners as below.

1. step 1; set-up: Receiver K forwards the matrix (H^([K2]))⁻¹H^([K1]) to receiver K−1.

2. step 2; computation of v^([1]): Receiver K−1 computes v^([1]) as any eigenvector of H^([K−11]))⁻¹H^([K−12])(H^([K2]))⁻¹H^([K1]) and quantizes it to

{circumflex over (v)}^(|1|)

with B₁ computed by equation 49.

{circumflex over (v)}^([1])

is forwarded to transmitter 1. Also, receiver K−1 forwards

d_(K − 11)^(−α)λ_(m ax)^([K − 12])

to receiver K.

3. step 3; computation of v[2]: Transmitter 1 feeds forward

{circumflex over (v)}^([1])

to receiver K. Then, receiver K calculates

{dot over (v)}^([2])

and quantizes it to

{circumflex over (v)}^([2])

with B₂ computed by equation 49.

{circumflex over (v)}_([2])

is fed back to transmitter 2.

4. step 4; computation of v^([3]), . . . , v^([K])

For i=3: K, Transmitter i−1 forwards

{circumflex over (v)}^([i−1])

to receiver i−2. Then, receiver i−2 calculates

{dot over (v)}^([i])

and quantizes it to

{circumflex over (v)}^([i])

with B, computed by equation 49.

{circumflex over (v)}^([i])

is fed back to transmitter i−1.

V. Successive CSI Exchange Method Based on Precoded RS

CSI exchange method in previous description can reduce the amount of network overhead for achieving IA. However, it basically assumes the feedforward/feedback channel links to exchange pre-determined beamforming vectors.

Considering precoded RS in LTE(long term evolution), the CSI exchange method can be slightly modified for the exchange of precoding vector(i.e. beamformer or beamforming vector). However, it still effectively scales down CSI overhead compared with conventional feedback method.

Consider K=M+1 user interference channel, where each transmitter and receiver are equipped with M antennas and DoF(d) for each user is d=1. Based on IA condition and precoding vector in equation 6 and equation 7, we firstly explain the procedure of CSI exchange method in feedforward/feedback framework for K=4. After that, we describe the procedure of CSI exchange method based on precoded RS, in detail.

1. Successive CSI Exchange in Method 1(e.g. K=4)

In K=4, IA condition is shown as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} {{{span}\left( {H^{\lbrack 13\rbrack}V^{\lbrack 3\rbrack}} \right)} = {{{span}\left( {H^{\lbrack 14\rbrack}V^{\lbrack 4\rbrack}} \right)}\mspace{14mu} {At}\mspace{14mu} {receiver}\mspace{14mu} 1}} \\ {{{span}\left( {H^{\lbrack 21\rbrack}V^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}} \right)} = {{{span}\left( {H^{\lbrack 24\rbrack}V^{\lbrack 4\rbrack}} \right)}\mspace{14mu} {At}\mspace{14mu} {receiver}\mspace{14mu} 2}} \\ {{{span}\left( {H^{\lbrack 31\rbrack}V^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}} \right)} = {{{span}\left( {H^{\lbrack 32\rbrack}V^{\lbrack 2\rbrack}} \right)}\mspace{14mu} {At}\mspace{14mu} {receiver}\mspace{14mu} 3}} \\ {{{span}\left( {H^{\lbrack 42\rbrack}V^{\lbrack 2\rbrack}} \right)} = {{{span}\left( {H^{\lbrack 43\rbrack}V^{\lbrack 3\rbrack}} \right)}\mspace{14mu} {At}\mspace{14mu} {receiver}\mspace{14mu} 4}} \end{matrix}->\begin{matrix} {{{span}\left( V^{\lbrack 1\rbrack} \right)} = {{span}\left( {\left( H^{\lbrack 31\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 32\rbrack}V^{\lbrack 2\rbrack}} \right)}} \\ {{{span}\left( V^{\lbrack 2\rbrack} \right)} = {{span}\left( {\left( H^{\lbrack 42\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 43\rbrack}V^{\lbrack 3\rbrack}} \right)}} \\ {{{span}\left( V^{\lbrack 3\rbrack} \right)} = {{span}\left( {\left( H^{\lbrack 13\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 14\rbrack}V^{\lbrack 4\rbrack}} \right)}} \\ {{{span}\left( V^{\lbrack 4\rbrack} \right)} = {{span}\left( {\left( H^{\lbrack 24\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 21\rbrack}V^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}} \right)}} \end{matrix}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 50} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

Then, precoding vectors at transmitter 1, 2, 3 and 4 can be determined as below equation.

V^([1])eigen vector of (H^([31]))⁻¹H^([32])(H^([42]))⁻¹H^([43])(H^([13]))⁻¹H^([14])(H^([24]))⁻¹H^([21])

V^([2])=(H^([32]))⁻¹H^([31])V^([1])

V^([3])=(H^([43]))⁻¹H^([42])v^([2])

V^([4])=(H^([14]))⁻¹H^([13])V^([3])  [equation 51]

In equation 50, the interference from transmitter 3 and 4 are on the same subspace at receiver 1. Likewise, the interference from transmitter 1 and 4, the interference from transmitter 1 and 2, and the interference from transmitter 2 and 3 are on the same subspace at receiver 2,3, and 4.

To inform the receiver that which interferers are aligned on the same dimension, CSI exchange method firstly requires initial signaling. This initial signaling is transmitted with a longer period than that of precoder update.

After the initial signaling indicated which interferers are aligned at each receiver, the receiver 1,2,3,4 feed back the selected interference channel matrices multiplied by the inverse of another interference channel matrices, {(H^([31]))⁻¹H^([32]), (H^([42]))⁻¹H^([43]), (H^([13]))⁻¹H^([14]), (H^([24]))⁻¹H^([21])} to transmitter 1. Based on these product channel matrices, transmitter 1 determines V^([1]) and forwards it to receiver 3. Then, receiver 3 determines V^([2]) using the channel information of (H^([32]))⁻¹H^([31]), and feeds it back to transmitter 2. With this iterative way, V^([3]) and V^([4]) are sequentially determined. This process is already described in previous part. However, it is slightly different in the point that V^([1]) is determined by transmitter 1 not a receiver 3.

FIG. 5 shows the procedure of CSI exchange method in case that K is 4.

Referring FIG. 5 (a), the procedure of CSI exchange method comprises below steps.

step 1. Initial Signaling: Each transmitter(e.g. BS) reports which interferers are aligned on the same dimension to its receiver. (In K=4, two of four interferers are selected as the aligned interference.)

step 2. Determine initial vector V^([1]): After initialization, receiver 1,2,3,4 feed back the product channel matrices to transmitter 1, then transmitter 1 can determine V^([1]).

step 3. Computation of V^([2]) V^([2]) and V^([4]): Transmitter 1 feeds forward V^([1]) to receiver 3 and receiver 3 calculates V^([2]). After that, receiver 3 feeds back V^([2]) to transmitter 2. With the exchange of pre-determined precoding vector, the remained precoding vectors are sequentially computed.

Referring FIG. 5 (b), the step 3 in the CSI exchange method is shown, where FF is feedfoward and FB is feedback links.

In a system using precoded RS such as a LTE system, each transmitter(e.g. BS) transmits the reference symbol with precoding vector. Therefore, the feedfoward signaling in successive CSI exchange can be modified compared with above CSI exchange method.

FIG. 6 shows the procedure of CSI exchange method based on precoded RS in case that K is 4.

Assume that i-th receiver perfectly estimates the channel matrices {H^([1i]), H^([2i]), . . . , H^([Ki])}. Then precoding vectors V^([1]), V^([2]), V^([3]), and V^([4]) for IA are designed by equation 51 in K=4. To compute the precoding vectors, the procedure of CSI exchange method based on precoded RS is suggested as below.

Referring FIG. 6 (a), the procedure of CSI exchange method based on precoded RS comprises below steps.

step 1. Initial signaling: Each BS(transmitter) reports which interferers are aligned on same dimension to its receiver. (The index of aligned interferers is forwarded to the receiver.)

step 2. Determine initial vector V^([1]): After initialization, receiver 1,2,3,4 feed back the product channel matrices to transmitter 1, then transmitter 1 can determine V^([1]). Here, the product channel matrices comprises (H^([31]))⁻¹H^([32]), (H^([42]))⁻¹H^([43]), (H^([13]))⁻¹H^([14]) and (H^([24]))⁻¹H^([21]).

step 3. computation V^([2]), V^([3]) and V^([4]).

referring FIG. 6( b), the process of the step 3 includes below procedures.

Transmitter 1: After determining its precoder V^([1]), transmitter 1 sends the precoded RS to receiver 3.

Receiver 3: Receiver 3 estimates effective channel H_(eff) ^([31])=H^([31])V^([1]). Based on equation 51, receiver 3 computes V^([2]) multiplying H_(eff) ^([31]) with (H^([32]))⁻¹ . Then, receiver 3 sends V^([2]) to transmitter 2 through feedback channel.

Transmitter 2: Transmitter 2 sends the precoded RS based on V^([2]) to receiver 4.

Receiver 4: Receiver 4 estimates effective channel H_(eff) ^([42])=H^([42])V^([2]) and it computes V^([3]) multiplying H_(eff) ^([42]) with (H^([43]))⁻¹. Then, V^([3]) is reported to transmitter 3 through feedback channel.

Transmitter 3: Transmitter sends the precoded RS based on V^([3]) to receiver 1.

Receiver 1: Receiver 1 estimates effective channel H_(eff) ^([13])=H^([13])V^([3]) and receiver 1 computes V^([4]) multiplying H_(eff) ^([13]) with (H^([14]))⁻¹. Then, V^([4]) is reported to transmitter 4 through feedback channel.

VI. Efficient Interference Alignment Method for 3 Cell MIMO Interference Channel with Limited Feedback.

There are known-closed form solutions for K user MIMO interference channel where K=3 with d=M/2 and K=M+1 with d=1. Here, d denotes a degree of freedom. In both case, each transmitter needs information of 2K product channel matrices for the initialization in equation 6, 7 since all precoders are coupled.

If quantized channel feedback is assumed, error of product-quantized matrices for IA solution is much larger than error of single channel matrix quantization.

As an example, consider K=3 and M=2 with d=1. The solution of V^([1]) is any eigenvector of (H^([31]))⁻¹H^([32])(H^([12]))⁻¹H^([13])(H^([23]))⁻¹H^([21]). If each receiver feeds back a product channel matrix for aligned interferences (e.g at receiver 3, feeding back H_(eff) ^([3])=(H^([32]))⁻¹H^([31]) H^([31]) to transmitter 1), the precoder at transmitter 1 is estimated as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\hat{V}}^{\lbrack 1\rbrack} = {{eig}\begin{pmatrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{pmatrix} {{\left( H^{\lbrack 31\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 32\rbrack}} +} \\ E^{\lbrack 3\rbrack} \end{pmatrix} \\ \begin{pmatrix} {{\left( H^{\lbrack 12\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 13\rbrack}} +} \\ E^{\lbrack 1\rbrack} \end{pmatrix} \end{matrix} \\ \begin{pmatrix} {{\left( H^{\lbrack 23\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 21\rbrack}} +} \\ E^{\lbrack 2\rbrack} \end{pmatrix} \end{pmatrix}}} \\ {= {{eig}\begin{pmatrix} {\left( H^{\lbrack 31\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}{H^{\lbrack 32\rbrack}\left( H^{\lbrack 12\rbrack} \right)}^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 13\rbrack}} \\ {{\left( H^{\lbrack 23\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 21\rbrack}} + E_{total}} \end{pmatrix}}} \\ {= {{eig}\left( {V^{\lbrack 1\rbrack} + E_{total}} \right)}} \end{matrix} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 52} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

In equation 52, E^([n]) is channel quantization error at node n and E_(total) is all but V^([1]). On account of matrix multiplication, Frobenius norm of E_(total) is larger than it of E^([n]) since E_(total) is made up of summation and multiplication of E^([n]). We will refer to this as the quantized error amplification (QEA) in interference alignment system. In other words, to satisfy a given feedback CSI distortion level in interference alignment system, much more feedback bits are required than that of point to point network. Therefore, in limited feedback system, IA solution for achieving the optimal DoF has much degradation compared with perfect feedback. This demands the development of an efficient alignment method to avoid QEA.

Basically, the QEA is due to the chaining condition of IA solution. Main idea of this embodiment of the present invention is use of fallow spatial DoFs to cut the chaining condition. If a node does not use some spatial DoF, IA solution is detached to several independent equations.

For example, let consider K=3 user and M x M MIMO interference channel. It is assumed that transmitter 1 is the sacrifice node (any node can be the sacrifice node) which means the DoF for the transmitter 1(d₁) is M/2−α, where a is the fallow DoF, and other 2 nodes use d₂ =d₃ =M/2 DoF. Based on IA condition in equation 50, first M/2−α beams at transmitter 2, 3 have to be aligned with beams of transmitter 1 and last α beams of transmitter 2, 3 have to be aligned at receiver 1, which is shown as below equation.

span(H ^([32]) V _([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([2]))=span(H ^([31]) V _([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([1]))

span(H ^([23]) V _([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([3]))=span(H ^([21]) V _([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([1]))

span(H ^([13]) V _([M/2−α+1, . . . , M/2]) ^([3]))=span(H ^([12]) V _([M/2−α+1, . . . , M/2]) ^([2]))   [equation 53]

Differently equation 50, equations included in the equation 53 are not coupled with each other. If transmitter 1 uses a predetermined precoder that is known to all receivers, first M/2−α beams at transmitter 2, 3 can be easily determined as below equation.

V _([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([2])

span((H ^([32]))⁻¹ H ^([31]) V _([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([1]))

V _([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([3])

span((H ^([23]))⁻¹ H ^([21]) V _([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([1]))   [equation 54]

In equation 54, V_([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([1]) predetermined precoder at node 1 which is known at all receivers. Similarly, using predetermined vectors for last a beams at transmitter 2, last α beams at transmitter 3 can be determined as below equation.

V _([M/2−α+1, . . . , M/2]) ^([2])

span ((H ^([13]))⁻¹ H ^([12]) W _([M/2−α+1, . . . , M/2]) ^([2]))   [equation 55]

In equation 55, W_([M/2−α+1, . . . , M/2]) ^([2]) is a (M×α) predetermined matrix at node 2 which can be known to all receivers. Then, final precoder can be determined by using QR decomposition since beamforming vectors at transmitter 2,3 are satisfied with orthogonal property, which is shown below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{\left\lbrack {Q^{\lbrack 2\rbrack},R} \right\rbrack = {{{{QRdecomposition}\mspace{14mu}\begin{bmatrix} {{\left( H^{\lbrack 32\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 31\rbrack}V_{\lbrack{1,\ldots \;,{{M/2} - \alpha}}\rbrack}^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}},} \\ W_{\lbrack{{{M/2} - \alpha + 1},\ldots \;,{M/2}}\rbrack}^{\lbrack 2\rbrack} \end{bmatrix}}\left\lbrack {Q^{\lbrack 3\rbrack},R} \right\rbrack} = {{QRdecomposition}\mspace{14mu}\left\lbrack \begin{matrix} {{\left( H^{\lbrack 23\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 21\rbrack}V_{\lbrack{1,\ldots \;,{{M/2} - \alpha}}\rbrack}^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}},} \\ {\left( H^{\lbrack 13\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 12\rbrack}W_{\lbrack{{{M/2} - \alpha + 1},\ldots \;,{M/2}}\rbrack}^{\lbrack 2\rbrack}} \end{matrix} \right\rbrack}}}\mspace{20mu} {{V^{\lbrack 2\rbrack} = Q_{\lbrack{1,\ldots \;,{M/2}}\rbrack}^{\lbrack 2\rbrack}},{V^{\lbrack 3\rbrack} = Q_{\lbrack{1,\ldots \;,{M/2}}\rbrack}^{\lbrack 3\rbrack}}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 56} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

FIG. 7 illustrates feedback information at each receiver for efficient interference alignment method for 3 cell MIMO interference channel with limited feedback.

Referring FIG. 7, Each transmitter transmits pilot signal and each receiver estimates each channel from transmitter. Based on equation 54 and 55 each receiver feeds back its feedback information to target transmitter. For example, receiver 1 feeds back (H^([13]))⁻¹H^([12])W_([M/2−α+1, . . . , M/2]) ^([2]) to transmitter 3. receiver 2 feeds back (H^([23]))⁻¹H^([21])V_([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([1]). And receiver 3 feeds back (H^([32]))⁻¹H^([31])V_([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([1]). In FIG. 7, FB^([i→j]) denotes feedback information from receiver i to transmitter j. By using equation 56, transmitter 2 and 3 determine each precoder.

Efficient interference alignment method for 3 cell MIMO interference channel with limited feedback(hereinafter ‘proposed method’) is invented to avoid the product of channel matrices and get better performance. If one node does not use α DoF, IA solution is separated to several independent equation, resulting in avoiding the product of all cross link channel matrices and reducing total feedback overhead.

Table. 1 shows the comparison of feedback amount between conventional method(quantized channel matrix feedback) and proposed method. The proposed method has much small feedback amount compared with conventional method.

TABLE 1 feedback amount conventional method proposed (# of feedback (channel matrix feedback) method coefficient) 6M² 2M(M/2 − α) + Mα M = 4 96 12 M = 8 384 48

FIG. 8 shows sum rate performance, total number of stream of other method.

Referring FIG. 8, the proposed method has remarkable sum rate performance gain compared with other methods. In this result, conventional method denotes naive channel matrix feedback and CSI exchange mehtod is the method mentioned in previous description. Total number of data streams for proposed method is 5 when M=4, others is 6. For this reason, the proposed method is not only more error robust than conventional IA solution but also reduces feedback overhead.

In previous description of section VI, it is assumed that K transmitters and K receivers are equipped with M antennas. However, hereinafter, it is considered that the K transmitters are equipped with M antennas and the K receivers are equipped with N antennas, and the case of the homogeneous network. Here, M and N can be an equal number or can be different numbers.

Hereinafter, it is described the case of 3 user MIMO interference channel which is comprised of 3 transmitters and 3 receivers. The reason why we consider only 3 user MIMO interference channel is that the number of dominant interferences is not large in general cellular networks. It is also assumed that there is no symbol extension for the simplicity in time or frequency domain. Then, node i transmits d_(i)≦min(M,N) independent spatial streams to its corresponding receiver. It is shown that min(M,N)K DoF can be achieved if K≦R and (MN/(M+N))K DoF can be achieved if K>R where K is the number of users and

R=└(max(M,N))/(min(M,N))┘

in prior arts. Without symbol extension, in pure constant MIMO channel, only an integer DoF can be achieved, therefore the optimal integer DoF(D*) is given by below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {{D^{*} = {{3{\min \left( {M,N} \right)}\mspace{14mu} {when}\mspace{14mu} R} \geq 3}}{\left\lfloor \frac{3{MN}}{M + N} \right\rfloor \mspace{14mu} {{otherwise}.}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 57} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

The actual DoF(D) can be expressed such as

D=Σ _(i=1) ³ d _(i)

where d_(i) is the number of spatially independent data streams at transmitter i. The actual DoF must be less and equal to D*. Under our assumptions, the received signal at receiver k can be written as below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {y_{i} = {{\sqrt{\frac{P}{d_{i\;}}}H_{i,i}V_{i}s_{i}} + {E_{l \neq i}\sqrt{\frac{P}{d_{l}}}H_{i,l}V_{l}s_{l}} + {n_{i}.}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 58} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

In equation 58, y_(i) is the N×1 received signal vector, P is transmit power, H_(i,j) is the N×M channel matrix from transmitter 1 to receiver i, V_(i) is the M×d_(i) precoding matrix used at transmitter i, s_(i) is the d_(i)×1 transmitted symbol vector at transmitter i, with unit norm element, i.e,

(s_(i) ^(H)s_(i))=d_(i)

, and n_(i) is a complex Gaussian noise vector at receiver i with covariance matrix σ²I_(N). Here, the notation H, has same meaning with the previous notation H^([mn]). And the notation V_(i) is same to the previous notation V^([i]).

The suboptimal sum rate due to imperfect CSIT(channel status information at transmitter) achieved by the linear zero-forcing receiver u, which is given by below equation.

$\begin{matrix} {R_{sum} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{3}{\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{d_{i}}{\log_{2}\left( {1 + \frac{\frac{P}{d_{i}}{{\left( u_{i}^{m} \right)^{H}H_{i,i}v_{i}^{m}}}^{2}}{\begin{matrix} {{\sum\limits_{l \neq m}{\frac{P}{d_{i}}{{\left( u_{i}^{m} \right)^{H}H_{i,i}v_{i}^{l}}}^{2}}} +} \\ {{\sum\limits_{k \neq i}{\sum\limits_{l = 1}^{d_{k}}{\frac{P}{d_{k}}{{\left( u_{i}^{m} \right)^{H}H_{i,k}v_{k}^{l}}}^{2}}}} + \sigma^{2}} \end{matrix}}} \right)}}}} & \left\lbrack {{equation}\mspace{14mu} 59} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}$

If CSIT is perfect, first and second term of denominator of logarithm function in equation 59 will be zero.

Hereinafter, a set of interference coordination methods are described for different transmit/receive antenna configurations.

A. Case 1: M≦N and D*≦N

For this case, there are extra DoF at each receiver such that achieving D* does not require IA(interference alignment). Also there is no need of CSIT for achieving D*. Although using any random precoders at transmitter, all operation to cancel interferences can be done at receiver side.

B. Case 2: M≦N and D*>N

If there exists achievable DoF vector d=[d₁,d₂,d₃] to satisfy one among the following two constraints, then the interference coordination method explained below can achieve the optimal integer DoF(D*) and reduction of CSI error amplication.

[Contraints 1]

2d ₁+3d ₂≦2N when d ₁ <d ₂ and d ₃ =d ₂   1.

3d ₁+2d ₃≦2N when d ₁=d₂ and d ₁ <d ₃.   2.

Under either of the above two constraints, D* can be achieved by the following interference coordination method based on interference alignment. Above constraints can be derived intuitively. Let consider following parameter,

λ=d ₁ +d ₂ +d ₃ −N

, where it is the number of overlap dimension means that at least λ beams should be aligned at each receiver. CSI error amplification issue comes from coupling condition of IA. If λ=d_(i), all beams at each transmitter are coupled with other beams from other 2 transmitters, which results in the requirement of all cross link CSIT at all transmitters. However, if 2λ≦d₂, i.e. 2d₁+3d₂≦2N, when d₁<d₂, d₃=d₂, it is sufficient that each beam is aligned with at most one beam of other transmitter. First λ beams at transmitter 2, 3 are aligned with that of transmitter 1, and rest λ beams at transmitter 2 are aligned with that of transmitter 3. At transmitter 2, first λ beams and rest λ beams should be disjoint to avoid multiple coupling of each beam, therefore 2λ≦d₂ should be satisfied. Under this constraint, to determine each precoder at each transmitters, needs only CSI from one receiver. Second constraint 3d₁+2d₃≦2N can be obtain by similar way. For instance D*=5 when M=3, N=4 case, d[1,2,2] is satisfied with first constraint such configuration can be achievable D*. If some antenna configuration can not be satisfied with above constraint, reduce actual DoF D until satisfy the constraint, leads to D=2N−d₁−d₂<D* to be achievable, such configuration can not achieve D* but reduce error variance. Based on this, we propose interference coordination method 1 comprising below steps.

1. step 1 (Set up): Each receiver checks existence of achievable DoF vector d=[d₁,d₂ ,d₃] satisfied with one of the constraints(i.e. 2d₁+3d₂≦2N, d₁≦d₂, d₃=d₂ or 3d₁+2d₃≦2N, d₁=d₂, d₁≦d₃). If there exists d, D=D* is achievable. Else each receiver reduces D until satisfied with one of the constraints.

2. step 2: For a∈A, A=[a₁, . . . . , a_(λ)|∀a_(i)∈[1, . . . , d₂], a₁≠a₂≠ . . . ≠a_(λ)], computation of v₂ ^(a) at receiver 3 to be aligned with v₁ ^(a), which is predetermined vector already known to receiver 2, 3 and computation of v₃ ^(a) at receiver 2 to be aligned with v₁ ^(a). For b∈B,

B=[b ₁ , . . . , b _(λ) |∀b _(i) ∈[1, . . . , d ₂ ]\A, b ₁ ≠b ₂ ≠ . . . ≠b _(λ],)

where

A\B

denotes a set from A excluding B, computation of v₃ ^(b) at receiver 1 to be aligned with v₂ ^(b) which is predetermined vector already known to receiver 1.

3. Step 3: Feedback v₂ ^(a), v₃ ^(a) and v₃ ^(b) vectors to corresponding transmitters.

In full channel feedback method, each receiver feeds back 2MN non zero coefficient to 3 transmitters. Since there are 3 receivers, total feedback overhead is 18MN. However, in the above method receiver feeds back λM non zeros coefficient to its corresponding transmitter. Total feedback overhead for the proposed algorithm is 3λM. Also there is much reduction of error propagation issue on the proposed method since determining each beam requires the CSIT from only 1 receiver.

C. Case 3: M>N and D*<M

For this case, there are extra DoF at each transmitter such that achieving D*. Differently case 1, this case require CSIT. By using reciprocity, feedback overhead can be efficiently reduced. We propose interference coordination method 2 comprising below steps.

1. Step 1: Each receiver determines receiver beamformer U_(i) first ramdomly or maximizing desired channel SINR.

2. Step 2: Each receiver feeds back U_(i) ^(H)H_(i,k), k≠i to corresponding transmitters.

3. Step 3:

${v_{i}^{m} = {v_{m}\left\lbrack {\overset{3}{\sum\limits_{{k = 1},{k \neq i}}}{\frac{P}{d^{i}}H_{k,i}^{H}U_{k}U_{k}^{H}H_{k,i}}} \right\rbrack}},{m = 1},{\ldots \mspace{14mu} d_{i}}$

where v_(m)[A] is the eigenvector corresponding to the d^(th) smallest eigenvalue of A. In the proposed method each receiver feeds back d_(i)M non-zero coefficient to 2 transmitters. Total feedback overhead for the proposed algorithm is 6D*M.

D. Case 4: M>N and D*≧M

In this case, each precoder need be determined for interference cancellation and alignment suitably. Receive beamformer can be more efficiently determined than transmit beamformer since considering reciprocal channel receiver side consider only interference alignment and size of receive beamformer is less than that of transmit beamformer. Although considering reciprocal channel, there is issue of error amplification. To avoid error amplification, each receiver can check following constraints.

[Constraints 2]

2d ₁+3d ₂≦2M, d ₁≦d₂ , d ₃ =d ₂   1

3d ₁+2d ₃≦2M, d ₁ =d ₂ , d ₁ ≦d ₃.   2

Differently case 2, N changes to M because of reciprocal channel property, also λ=d₁+d₂+d₃−M=D−M. After setup with satisfied with above constraints, receive beamformers are firstly determined, then each receiver feeds back its effective channel to corresponding transmitters like case 3. We propose interference coordination method 3 comprising below steps.

1. step 1(Set up): Each receiver check existence of achievable DoF vector d=[d₁,d₂,d₃] satisfied with constraints 2(2d₁+3d₂≦2M, d₁≦d₂, d₃=d₂ or 3d₁+2d₃≦2M, d₁=d₂ , d₁≦d₃). If there exists d, D=D* is achievable, else reduce D until satisfied with one of the constraints 2.

2. Step 2: For

a∈A, A=[a ₁ , . . . , a _(λ) |∀a _(i)∈[1, . . . , d ₂ ], a ₁ ≠a ₂ ≠ . . . ≠a _(λ],)

receiver 1 feeds back (U₁ ^(a))^(H) H_(1,3) to receiver 2 for computation of u₂ ^(a) to be aligned with u₁ ^(a) at transmitter 3, receiver 1 feeds back (U₁ ^(a))^(H) H_(1,2) for computation of u₃ ^(a) to be aligned with u₁ ^(a) at transmitter 2, where u₁ ^(a) is predetermined.

For

b∈B, B=[b ₁ , . . . , b _(λ) |∀b _(i)∈[1, . . . , d ₂ ]\A,b ₁ ≠b ₂ ≠ . . . ≠b _(λ)],

receiver 2 feeds back (u₂ ^(b))^(H)H_(2,1)for computation of u₃ ^(b) to be aligned with u₂ ^(b) at transmitter 1, where u₂ ^(b) is predetermined.

3. Step 3: Each receiver feeds back U_(i) ^(H)H_(i,k), k≠i to corresponding transmitters.

4. Step 4:

$v_{i}^{m} = {v_{m}\left\lbrack {\sum\limits_{{k = 1},{k \neq i}}^{3}{\frac{P}{d^{i}}H_{k,i}^{H}U_{k}U_{k}^{H}H_{k,i}}} \right\rbrack}$

m=1, . . . d_(i), where v_(m)[A] is the eigenvector corresponding to the dth smallest eigenvalue of A.

In step 3, feedback overhead is 3λM, then step 4 feedback overhead is

Σ_(i=1) ³2d _(i) M=2DM.

Total feedback overhead for the proposed algorithm is 3λM+2DM=5DM−3M². For uplink system, if wireline backhaul between each base station is assumed so that each receiver shares each channel information, feedback overhead in step 3 can be reduced to zero.

While the invention has been described in connection with what is presently considered to be practical exemplary embodiments, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover various modifications and equivalent arrangements included within the spirit and scope of the appended claims. 

1. A method for interference alignment in wireless network having 3 transmitters and 3 receivers which are equipped with M antennas, the method comprising: transmitting, performed by each of the 3 transmitters, a pilot signal known to the 3 receivers; estimating, performed by each of the 3 receivers, each channel from transmitter; transmitting, performed by each of the 3 receivers, feedback information to target transmitter; and determining, performed by transmitter 2 and transmitter 3, a precoding vector; wherein a degree of freedom(DoF) of a transmitter 1 is (M/2−α), a DoF of the transmitter 2 or the transmitter 3 is M/2.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein first (M/2−α) beams at the transmitter 2 and the transmitter 3 are aligned with beams of the transmitter
 1. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein last a beams of the transmitter 2 and the transmitter 3 are aligned at a receiver
 1. 4. The method of claim 1, wherein a transmitter 1 uses a predetermined precoder which is known to the 3 receivers.
 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the predetermined precoder is (M×(M/2−α)) matrix.
 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the feedback information comprises information expressed below equation. FB^([1→3])=(H^([13])) ⁻¹H^([12])W_([M/2−α+1, . . . , M/2]) ^([2]) FB^([2→3])=(H^([23]))⁻¹H^([21])V_([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([1]) FB^([3→2 ])=(H^([32])) ⁻¹H^([31])V_([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([1]) where FB^([i→j]) denotes feedback information from receiver i to transmitter j, W_([M/2−α+1, . . . , M/2]) ^([2]) is (M×α))predetermined matrix at the transmitter 2, H^([mn]) is a channel matrix between transmitter n and receiver m and V_([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([1]) is the (M×(M/2−α))predetermined precoder of the transmitter
 1. 7. The method of claim 6, wherein first (M/2−α) beams at the transmitter 2 and the transmitter 3 is determined by below equation. V _([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([2])

span((H ^([32]))⁻¹ H ^([31]) V _([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([1])) V _([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([3])

span ((H ^([32]))⁻¹ H ^([21]) V _([1, . . . , M/2−α]) ^([1]))
 8. The method of claim 7, wherein last α beams at the transmitter 3 is determined by below equation. V _([M/2−α+1, . . . , M/2]) ^([3])

span ((H ^([13]))⁻¹ H ^([12]) W _([M/2−α+1, . . . , M/2]) ^([2]))
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the precoder of the transmitter 2 and the precoder of the transmitter 3 are determined by the below equation. $\left\lbrack {Q^{\lbrack 2\rbrack},R} \right\rbrack = {{{{QRdecomposition}\begin{bmatrix} {{\left( H^{\lbrack 32\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 31\rbrack}V_{\lbrack{1,\ldots \mspace{14mu},{{M/2} - \alpha}}\rbrack}^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}},} \\ W_{\lbrack{{{M/2} - \alpha + 1},\ldots \mspace{14mu},{M/2}}\rbrack}^{\lbrack 2\rbrack} \end{bmatrix}}\left\lbrack {Q^{\lbrack 3\rbrack},R} \right\rbrack} = {{QRdecompositon}\begin{bmatrix} {{\left( H^{\lbrack 23\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 21\rbrack}V_{\lbrack{1,\ldots \mspace{14mu},{{M/2} - \alpha}}\rbrack}^{\lbrack 1\rbrack}},} \\ {\left( H^{\lbrack 13\rbrack} \right)^{- 1}H^{\lbrack 12\rbrack}W_{\lbrack{{{M/2} - \alpha + 1},\ldots \mspace{14mu},{M/2}}\rbrack}^{\lbrack 2\rbrack}} \end{bmatrix}}}$ V^([2]) = Q_([1, …  , M/2])^([2]), V^([3]) = Q_([1, …  , M/2])^([3]) 